This study was designed to determine: (a) the nature and extent of programmatic changes that occurred in the nine Indiana "High Schools That Work" pilot sites, (b) how the implementation of these changes has impacted administrative roles and responsibilities, and (c) whether the principal's role is different in program implementation when another educator is directly responsible for a specific school-improvement initiative. Questionnaires were mailed to principals and site coordinators at each pilot site, and personal interviews were subsequently conducted with each of them.Findings and conclusions were:1. All pilot sites used some form of integrated, non-linear planning. Integrated, non-linear planning helped pilot-site principals and site coordinators gain support for their programs and implement a greater number of changes than the researcher expected to find.2. Communication and finding time to plan were the two most significant planning problems. When there was a breakdown in communication among constituent groups, the level of support for various initiatives diminished. Releasing teachers from classroom activities to plan this initiative provided help in the planning process.3. Administrators at each school incorporated programmatic changes to reflect changes in philosophy, curriculum, and instruction. These changes included: (a) raising academic expectations, (b) eliminating the general track, (c) revising curriculum and instructional techniques, (d) integrating subject areas across academic disciplines and between academic and vocational subjects, (e) restructuring guidance programs, (f) collaborating with business communities, (g) modifying student assessment methods, and (h) changing the structure of the school day. Changes made through the "High Schools That Work" initiative have impacted all constituent groups affiliated with the pilot-site schools.4. Educators in dual roles of principal and site coordinator maintained direct control of their projects, and their time commitments were significantly greater than those of principals at schools with separate site coordinators. In situations where a site coordinator was present, the principal primarily assumed the role of supporter. This support role was especially critical with regard to communication and problem-solving.5. When there was no separate site coordinator, the principal assumed a broader range of responsibilities and acted as initiator, supporter, facilitator, and problem-solver for the initiative. When a site coordinator was present, the principal delegated power and leadership responsibilities to him or her. / Department of Educational Leadership
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:BSU/oai:cardinalscholar.bsu.edu:handle/175019 |
| Date | January 1996 |
| Creators | Beerman, Susan E. |
| Contributors | Kowalski, Theodore J. |
| Source Sets | Ball State University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Format | xiii, 213 leaves ; 28 cm. |
| Source | Virtual Press |
| Coverage | n-us-in |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds